I do not understand why the Democrats need the Republicans to ratify a budgit.

In England...the party ellected, makes the budgit...and doesnt need to get permission from the opposition...infact...that defeats the object of being in power in the first place...surely?

So can someone explain, why there isnt a Cabinet Treasurer, in the democratic adminstration, who cant, simply make a budgit...and why the Republican shadow Cabinet, does not create its alternative budgit, so the people can choose whether to stick with the democrats...or change the budgit to the republican one at the next general, by ellecting them.

Secondly...what exactly is shutting down??? Ive heard wild rumours that noone in the military is getting paid Soo...your Government think its wise to shut down its military...I mean...EVER???

Someone else told me that all the national parks and monuments are closed...can anyone explain to me, why these national parks and monuments are not controlled by the State Governments that they are located in...Strikes me, that actually, the Federal Governments ideal of a "shut down" isnt a shut down at all...but the relinquishing of services that IT HAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE RUNNING IN THE FIRST PLACE

Thirdly...they tell me that this has happened several times before. Can I ask an obvious question...being that every time this happens it screws your country...why is there no default budgit...or contingency plan for financial running in the event a budgit can not be aggreed on???

Finally...I hope, regardless of where you stand politically...you understand that IF your government fails to meet its bills next month, because of this, your Government will be responsible for what is likely to be ANOTHER Global catastrophe in the financial sector.

Do you realize, that your lil Bi-Partisan, anti american, unconstitutional Federal Civil War actually effects people who are NOT American, like me. That whilst we were angry before at what happened due to Americans living beyond there means, Banks being unregulated, and a Government dithering about supporting its financial markets...if this happens again, its very likely that in order to survive and never have this problem again...the Western Financial System will split, and redevelope independantly of America.

You will force Europe towards China, and by so doing you will never be a super power again. Do you understand that?

This is make or break time in Lincolns legacy. Give america back to George Washington before you sink us all

As a federal employee with the FAA, I can tell you one thing: It blows! I'm considered an essential employee because my work supports active FAA operations. If something goes wrong, I have to be available to fix it or it becomes a matter of public safety. Other federal employees are considered "non-essential" if their job does not immediately impact public safety. That doesn't mean their jobs aren't important. It just means that nobody gets hurt or dies as a result of them not being available to work. If their work is stopped long enough, it will be noticed. No improvements to existing software, roadways, federal architecture, etc.

I have no idea why our government is set up in a way that this is allowed to happen. Chalk it up to more evidence of the corruption of our people in power. Make no mistake. NONE of them are looking out for the people. They're all looking out for themselves and their political party's best interest.

We would like to vote them out and put better people in their place. The problem is, people who CAN do a better job typically don't want the job. The only people who want the jobs are those who want to use it for corrupt purposes.

As a federal employee with the FAA, I can tell you one thing: It blows! I'm considered an essential employee because my work supports active FAA operations. If something goes wrong, I have to be available to fix it or it becomes a matter of public safety. Other federal employees are considered "non-essential" if their job does not immediately impact public safety. That doesn't mean their jobs aren't important. It just means that nobody gets hurt or dies as a result of them not being available to work. If their work is stopped long enough, it will be noticed. No improvements to existing software, roadways, federal architecture, etc.

I have no idea why our government is set up in a way that this is allowed to happen. Chalk it up to more evidence of the corruption of our people in power. Make no mistake. NONE of them are looking out for the people. They're all looking out for themselves and their political party's best interest.

We would like to vote them out and put better people in their place. The problem is, people who CAN do a better job typically don't want the job. The only people who want the jobs are those who want to use it for corrupt purposes.

I do not understand why the Democrats need the Republicans to ratify a budgit.

It takes both houses of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives, to pass a federal budget, or, a continuing resolution when they've failed to pass a budget, in order to keep the federal government running. Currently, the Democrats have the majority in the Senate and the Republicans have the majority in the House. Now throw the President into the mix.

Unfortunately they use the threat of a gov't shut-down (and the debt ceiling which is coming up next) to see which side will blink first. They didn't come to an agreement before time ran out so the shut-down began. Mike explained about essential and non-essential...

The problem for the American people is we have no immediate recourse (that I know of?) we can use to punish these bastards until they come up for re-election and they know it!

It takes both houses of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives, to pass a federal budget, or, a continuing resolution when they've failed to pass a budget, in order to keep the federal government running. Currently, the Democrats have the majority in the Senate and the Republicans have the majority in the House. Now throw the President into the mix.

Unfortunately they use the threat of a gov't shut-down (and the debt ceiling which is coming up next) to see which side will blink first. They didn't come to an agreement before time ran out so the shut-down began. Mike explained about essential and non-essential...

The problem for the American people is we have no immediate recourse (that I know of?) we can use to punish these bastards until they come up for re-election and they know it!

the problem is you vote our the dems in the senate and the reps in the house and they basically swap positions and you have the same problem (i am not stating this, i am asking) ...

would a viable third party be the answer? problem is i guess is who would they represent? (which political allegiance)

1) As a federal employee with the FAA, I can tell you one thing: It blows! I'm considered an essential employee because my work supports active FAA operations. If something goes wrong, I have to be available to fix it or it becomes a matter of public safety. Other federal employees are considered "non-essential" if their job does not immediately impact public safety. That doesn't mean their jobs aren't important. It just means that nobody gets hurt or dies as a result of them not being available to work. If their work is stopped long enough, it will be noticed. No improvements to existing software, roadways, federal architecture, etc.

I have no idea why our government is set up in a way that this is allowed to happen. Chalk it up to more evidence of the corruption of our people in power. Make no mistake. NONE of them are looking out for the people. They're all looking out for themselves and their political party's best interest.

2) We would like to vote them out and put better people in their place. The problem is, people who CAN do a better job typically don't want the job. The only people who want the jobs are those who want to use it for corrupt purposes.

What does FAA stand for

2) Yes...they say thats true, the best people for the job, are not stupid enough to run in the first place. I think thats true aswell on the whole.

It takes both houses of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives, to pass a federal budget, or, a continuing resolution when they've failed to pass a budget, in order to keep the federal government running. Currently, the Democrats have the majority in the Senate and the Republicans have the majority in the House. Now throw the President into the mix.

Unfortunately they use the threat of a gov't shut-down (and the debt ceiling which is coming up next) to see which side will blink first. They didn't come to an agreement before time ran out so the shut-down began. Mike explained about essential and non-essential...

2) The problem for the American people is we have no immediate recourse (that I know of?) we can use to punish these bastards until they come up for re-election and they know it!

1) I guess the problem for any British Person to understand is that there is a Difference between Leader of The Party, and President, for the political party that wins the ellection.

In England the person incharge of the Political Party automatically, by default, becomes the Prime Minister if his party get more votes from the public.

Now that doesnt happen with the US...and thats why the parties pick candidates, coz it isnt automatic, who would become president. This complicates things....because in England its not just the prime minister who wins the ellection...its the entire party.

Thats not true of the American system...The Democrat Party is NOT a winner in "Government" it is still mixed up in two houses with maybe more of another party. Essentially, there is no "Government party" and no "Opposition" there is just always a Split Government...and a President....Technically speaking, that means that the Office of the President, cant actually be a Government Office, as the Government never changes. If that were untrue, it would be impossible, EVER for any independant to even run.

So I suppose because you separate your Head of State, from your Government...he is powerless to do anything dictatorial. Which is good in theory...but its taken to far, when as a man in power, he cant even be permitted to form his own budgit, not even if the alternative is that the Government runs out of money and stops working.

The obvious way around this, is to actually say that the role of formulating a Budgit should litterally be a creation of the President and his Cabinet Ministers. In that manner, the president, and which ever party he comes from, set the budgit, without interference from houses where, despite theoretically being in power...they might be a minority. I happen to think that is more sensible, then the alternative you are all living through now. Though the one thing that makes impossible, is for any vote, in any house, on the budgit...and my guess is, that would not go down well with anyone in any of those houses regardless of party association...noone wants to be oppressed

2) Ive always said about Democrasy...and Egypt found this out the hard way. its the best, possibly, of a bad bunch. You ellect someone who is a trained liar, on a number of false promises, where often semantics are the onlything separating different view points. Your minority could be half the country, minus one person, and once in, you have no power over them until the next time you go to the polls...which could be years.

So...I dont think that democrasy removes the liklihood of a dictator being ellected, and then the people not being able to legitamately remove him, and then he goes an ammends laws to stop himself being able to leave office.

After all. Even Adolf Hitler was legitamately Ellected as Chancellor in Germany. This hatred of Supremecy, and Divine Right of Kingship, that created cultures like the American one, designed, to try and stop that being a possiblity, only reduces the liklihood. Usually, as we have seen since World War Two...all Democrasy becomes, is a short term ellected dictator. Some worse then others.

the problem is you vote our the dems in the senate and the reps in the house and they basically swap positions and you have the same problem (i am not stating this, i am asking) ...

would a viable third party be the answer? problem is i guess is who would they represent? (which political allegiance)

The problem they have, RNC, is that no one party is actually in power. Its a continual conglomerate that vote.

They separate the President from his Party...So the Government, as a political party doesnt exist, and neither does an Opposition party.

The President is effectively a Third Party himself in that respect.

HE, NOT the Party wins the ellection. Once you separate the President from the Government it becomes clear that no matter who you have as the President, you will always have a mixed bag Congress.

A third actual party would only work, if you kept the same over all numbers, so actively decreased Republicans and Democrats and put in...prefereably, an Odd number of something else...in the hope that those something else would be the deal makers...Republicans always go right, Democrats always go left...so the deciding factor would be how many something else, decide to vote...That of course would infuriate the parties...because they would then have the exact same problem as the President...that the actual decision, can never be made by them...but by this something else party.

Also...how would you ever ensure this something else party remained in existance? They would have to be mandatory...in which case how would they be appointed or ellected? It would have to be an amendment saying that you Always have to have a certain number of independants in congress, in both houses...and how can that be guarenteed democratically.

if appointed, people will say that the party president who appoints them, has obviously chosen people he know will side with his party...and the only other way to do it, is exactly like the House of Lords...where some random people by birth right are always present...the Americans would never go with that. Not ever.